How to upgrade from an old version of MSR?

[LibraSun]

@toggledbits , am digging how the new a..b operator behaves predictably, fixing the decimal of a and spitting out integer steps up to ≤b when both a,b > 0 and a < b. For example:

a = 1 .. 3.3
// result (array) [1,2,3]
a = 1.1 .. 2.3
// result (array) (array) [1.1,2.1]

But sometimes it tries too hard, particularly in this case where a < 0:

a = -2.3 .. 1.1
// result (array) [-2.3,-1.2999999999999998,-0.2999999999999998,0.7000000000000002]

or here, where a > b:

a = 2.3 .. 1.1
// result (array) [2.3,1.2999999999999998]

All testing thus far using only INTEGERS has avoided any rounding issues, so that will likely become my mantra on usage.
rev. 21123

[LibraSun]

KEEP TURNING OFF LIGHTS!

I thought it might be fun to have a Rule that periodically watches for lights (any device, really) left on, but I wanted the entire "action" part of the Rule to live inside a single expression. Here's what I came up with:

devs = each dev in getEntity( "vera>controller_all" ).members:
  match( dev , ".*device_\\d+" ),
devices = each dev in devs: 
  indexOf( getEntity( dev ).actions, "dimming.set" ) > -1 ? dev : null,
performAction( f = first dev in devices with getEntity( dev ).attributes.power_switch.state, "power_switch.off", { } ), 
getEntity( f ).name + " turned off."

This example only checks dimmable lights paired with Vera, but could easily be modified to include other classes of device connected to other controllers, etc.
The way it works is it (Line 1) pulls all of the member devices associated with Vera; (Line 2) filters the list to disregard devices not of the form device_NNN; (Lines 3-4) checks to see whether each device handles dimming; and, (Line 5) passes along only those for performAction() to turn off individually (one "On" device per cycle); finally, (Line 6) the name of the most recently turned-off device is logged.

I concocted this behemoth because my Vera routinely chokes on my "Lights Out" rule, which attempts to switch 20 devices OFF all at once. I felt it might be more prudent to handle the switching at a slower pace, with the added benefit that if anyone turns ON one of the listed devices during "Lights Out" time, this rule would spot it and turn it back off automatically.

Comments?

• Libra

[toggledbits]

I suggest adding both comments (# to end of line is a comment in lexpjs) and indent spaces for clarity (e.g. the match clause on the second line is part of the each on the first line, so IMO an indent would make this much more clear).

That search on the first two lines suggests that MSR may need a deterministic way to differentiate an entity that represents a device from entities that represent other system data. I'll think about that, because it has come up before.

Another way to write the test on line 4 is 'dimming' in getEntity( dev ).capabilities. The capabilities property is an object, so the in operator works by directly testing on that object, and will be much faster than using indexof() on the actions array. Given, this operation probably would not run frequently, so that kind of optimization may be overkill, but I assert that this alternative to the array search is actually easier to interpret as well, and where performance is not the leading goal, clarity is a good next candidate.

The inline assignment to a temporary variable on 5 and used in line 6 is clever and makes me cackle with glee.

[LibraSun]

@toggledbits and other puzzle lovers... I challenge you to paste in this Expression definition and run it with the 'try' button, to solve this heavily obfuscated conundrum:

solve="<creator_mystery>";
s1="(.)";s2="(..)";s3="(...)";s4=s1+s1;s5=s2+s2;s6=s3+s3;who=getEntity(replace(solve,s4+s6+s4+s4+s5+s1,"\$3\$2\$4\$5\$8\$7\$8\$9\$6\$11\$8\$7\$8\$9\$6"));
you=who[keys(who)[0x07]];are=you[keys(you)[0b01]];upper(substr(are[keys(are)[0o10]],0,0o13))

|-Answer: _____________°fa-info°(S┴IqpƎ˥פפO┴)-|

[LibraSun]

@toggledbits , how does MSR "know" that an expression like:

each dev in devs: getEntity(dev).attributes.power_switch.state ? dev : null

contains dependencies on the status of (potentially) many devices?

It's neat that MSR almost immediately detects when a light gets turned on, for instance, and the resulting array grows by one within less than a second. But what is cuing MSR to re-evaluate the above expression so quickly behind the scenes?

[toggledbits]

If devs is a constant list, the iteration visits each dev through getEntity(), and that function subscribes to any device it is asked to resolve. So the first time the expression is evaluated, it has subscribed to every device in devs.

[LibraSun]

@toggledbits meanwhile, as I watch the steady stream of "changed entities" (involving devices that are otherwise just minding their own business, doing nothing) going by on Status, such as:

Sound Bar Beam
vera>device_322
Playing
17:39:11
Sofa Lamp
vera>device_138
false
17:39:00

do you recommend any changes to Vera in order to throttle that traffic, or is it just customary Z-Wave polling in action?

[toggledbits]

The rule or expression isn't reacting to every device, only those devices that end up being a target of getEntity(). The polling activity will cause additional evaluations, but it causes little actual additional load on the (MSR) system, certainly not enough to make it worth your time to try to put a dent in it. Party on!

[LibraSun]

SORTING AN ARRAY IN MSR EXPRESSIONS

I somehow doubt this will find much utility among most users' workflows, but here goes...
If you want to sort a particular 1-dimensional numerical array:

a=[8,3,11,0,5], #unsorted array
L=len(a)-1, 
each i in 0..L: #repeat for each value in a
do
b=a[0], #beginning with first value in array
each j in 0..(L-i): #compare remaining values
if min(b,num=a[j])<b then b=num else b endif,
remove(a,indexOf(a,b)), #remove b from array
b #was lowest number found in original array
done

// result (array) [ 0 , 3 , 5 , 8 , 11 ]

PRO TIP: To sort an array from another expression, simply edit the first line to something like this:

a = clone(otherExp),

UPDATE: As of release 21153, in which min() may take an array as its argument, the following expression works more cleanly:

a=[8,3,11,0,5],
each n in a: do b=min(a), remove(a,indexOf(a,b)), b done

[LibraSun]

CREATING AN ARRAY OF STEPPED VALUES

In case you're looking for a numerical array containing evenly-spaced (linear) DIM values in the range 0 to 1 and back to 0, this expression should fill the bill:

each s in split(join(0..10)+","+join(9..0),","): int(s)/10

// result (array) [0,0.1,0.2,0.3,0.4,0.5,0.6,0.7,0.8,0.9,1,0.9,0.8,0.7,0.6,0.5,0.4,0.3,0.2,0.1,0]

[toggledbits]

Also works: each n in -10..10: (10-abs(n))/10.

[LibraSun]

ARRAY OF RAMPED DIM VALUES USING SINE WAVE PATTERN

pi=3.1415, steps=10; each step in 0..steps:
round(sin(step*(pi/(2*steps))),2)

// result (array) [0,0.16,0.31,0.45,0.59,0.71,0.81,0.89,0.95,0.99,1]

NOTE: You can change the number of steps to any integer value.

[LibraSun]

ROTATE SET OF LIGHTS

Sometimes you might want a set of lights to swap "On"/"Off" states -- not "toggle" per se, just follow each other based on their starting status, which I'm calling "rotation." (I believe the technical term is "chasing.")

lites=["vera>device_8","vera>device_9","vera>device_110"], patt=each L in lites: getEntity(L).attributes.power_switch.state, 
new=slice(push(patt,patt[0]),1), each v,k in new: performAction(lites[k],"power_switch."+(v?"on":"off"),{})

USAGE
Edit the list in lites based on which devices you want to participate in the rotation. Every time this expression evaluates, the on/off states will rotate by one: i.e. 010 ► 100 ► 001, etc.

[tunnus]

@toggledbits any chance we'll see strftime function coming up "soon"? Or advice how to implement the same with lexpjs (when you have unix timestamp, RfV example below)?

strftime("%H:%M %d/%m/%y", <timestamp> )